Re: NMC3 standards published

August 28, 2004

I have read them through briefly. It just seems to me that they have stolen our Principles of Health Visiting to use for this made up community practitioner. WE ARE HEALTH VISITORS obviously nobody, including the government, NMC etc really appreciates or seems to care what we do!!!!! ARGHHHHH Kathy Soderquist

August 28, 2004

Well - I have now read these in some detail - there is a lot of initial

introductory information which I guess gets put into all the standards they

do around fitness for practice, award etc.

Once you get through this - for me, like Woody says, then there does not

seem to be much at all to work with - there are standards of proficiency

built on the principles of health visiting but my sense is as we keep saying

as they are trying to cover so many different groups - they are very over

arching and all professions will fell there are bits of their role not

covered. It think it does read as a compromise but this might be my bias.

I am pleased the programme has to be 52 weeks and that makes sense and it is

also good that they say there has to be someone teaching an area with that

qualification and also if we link this to the standards for teaching which

are out for consultation - I am sure some positives can come out from all of

that.

But I remain unclear as to what a specialist community public health nurse

is and I do not thibk this document helps.

It feels to me as if each of the separate professions covered will need

additional standards and competencies for their area.

It was interesting talking to a PCT director of nursing in the week who

wants to look at the standard of her staff and their competencies especially

health visiting and school nursing for present - I found myself saying well

you will need to look further than the new public health standards and of

course for health visiting there are the competencies produced in 2002 which

you could also use for school nursing.

As a wider issue, I do wander where all of this fits in with the knowledge

and skills framework and agenda for change.

Margaret

NMC3 standards published

> The standards for the new register have been published at last

> (attached). I will be very interested in any comments, before I give my

> views! best wishes sarah

>

August 29, 2004

Thank you for your comment Kathy. 'Stealing the principles of health visiting'

as you call it, would be deemed plagiarism and regarded as a serious academic

misdemeanour in any other circles. A student submitting such work would

be failed and disciplined, and the fact that the principles have been relabelled

as 'domains' would probably be cited at the disciplinary hearing as a clumsy

effort to hide their original source. Publishers could sue, but the CETHV,

which originally published the work, is no longer around to do so. I am speculating,

but suggest that, given the determination by the nursing leaders to be rid

of everything related to health visiting, the only way of getting them into

the document at all, was by pretending they had nothing to do with health

visiting. Has it helped or hindered our cause, do you think?

Maureen , before she left the NMC (with a large sigh of relief, after

all the battles) kept telling us that, if we want health visiting to survive

as a title or as a profession, we have to maintain it ourselves. The official

regulatory body will not do it for us. So, keep up your fight for strong

CPTSs in your local area; we need them.

kms160360@... wrote:

I have read them through briefly. It just seems to me that they have

stolen our Principles of Health Visiting to use for this made up community

practitioner. WE ARE HEALTH VISITORS obviously nobody, including the government,

NMC etc really appreciates or seems to care what we do!!!!! ARGHHHHH Kathy

Soderquist

August 30, 2004

Thanks for all this Margaret. Actually, some of the descriptions around

'fitness for purpose' would be quite useful, I think, if they were used to

describe health visiting (page 6). They do not apply to any other public

health roles, even though the term 'health visiting' seems to have been more

or less banned from the document. It does give a useful description of practice

orientation, management of community public health practice, professional

perspective and service orientation, which are recognisably about health

visiting. Again, there are lots of elements that might be called plagiarism,

since their source is not cited. Most were drawn from the /Maureen

report of the development of standards for pre-registration health

visiting programmes and have nothing at all to do with nursing or general

public health.

I am still unsure whether they are useful to us as health visitors, just

because of the 'relabelling.' But it should mean that anyone beong offered

a training programme that does not fully recognise the needs of the job can

point to these paragraphs: in this respect, they are some of the most useful

parts of the book, I think

best wishes

sarah

Margaret Buttigieg wrote: